Presentation to publication: proportion of abstracts published for ESPR, SPR and IPR.

BACKGROUND: Advancement of knowledge requires presentation and publication of high-quality scientific research. Studies submitted for presentation undergo initial peer review before acceptance and the rate of subsequent publication may be taken as an indicator of access to publication for pediatric radiology studies. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the proportion of abstracts also published in journals for pediatric radiology conferences and identify factors associated with publication success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All Medline articles that originated from oral presentations at the European Society for Paediatric Radiology (ESPR), the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) or the International Pediatric Radiology (IPR) conferences between 2010 - 2012 were evaluated. Descriptive statistics to evaluate published and unpublished groups were calculated overall and split by characteristics of the abstracts such as number of authors. RESULTS: Overall number of abstracts published was 300/715 (41.9%), with most articles published in radiology specific journals (181/300; 60.3%), with median impact factor 2.31 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.65-3.14, range: 0-18.03). Those published after the conference (262/300, 87.6%) had a median time to publication of 18 months and for those published before, the median time was -11 months. Median sample size in published articles was 52 (IQR: 33-105, range: 1-6,351). CONCLUSION: Of pediatric radiology oral abstracts, 41.9% achieve publication after a period of at least 3 years from presentation. Studies originating from certain countries and on certain subspecialty topics were more likely to get published.

Smartphone applications in paediatric radiology: availability and authority.

BACKGROUND: With the widespread ownership of smartphones, many health care professionals question the degree to which medically related smartphone applications are reliable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the variety of smartphone applications relating to paediatric radiology and the presence of health care professional involvement in their development. As a secondary objective, we explore whether there are gaps within the paediatric radiology app market. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The most popular smartphone marketplaces (Apple iTunes App Store, Blackberry Mobile Market, Google Play Android Market, Nokia Ovi, Samsung and Microsoft Windows Marketplace) were searched for terms relating to paediatric radiology. Cost, review ratings, number of downloads, health care involvement and target audience were recorded. RESULTS: Nine paediatric radiology applications were found in the Apple iTunes App Store and nine in the Google Play Android Market. The target audiences for all applications were health care professionals. None were available for patients or their caregivers. All applications were reported to have medical expertise in their development. CONCLUSION: All paediatric radiology applications were developed with the aid of a health care professional. Due to the small number available online, there is a potential gap in the marketplace for further applications in this field, possibly aimed at patients and their families.